Another part of the exhibit was a black platform with the words, "Stop the Israel's Holocausts."[Al Hayat Al Jadida, March 20, 2008]

Palestinian Authority (Fatah) TV already taught children in the past that Israel burned children in the Holocaust. With ovens pictured in the background and actors playing dead children as part of a musical play, an actor in a video declared:

"They [Israel] are the ones who did the Holocaust ... They opened the ovens for us to bake human beings... and when one oven stopped burning they lit a hundred more ovens." [PA TV March 25, 2004]

Palestinian children in Gaza were gathered for an exhibition that depicts Israel burning children in a crematorium. Young children are seen standing beside dolls being placed into a model of a cremation oven.

According to the article in Al Ayyam, "The National Committee for defense of Children from the Holocaust opened its activities with a Holocaust exhibit. The Exhibit include a large oven and inside it small children are being burned, the picture speaks for itself."[Al Ayyam, March 20, 2008]

Another part of the exhibit was a black platform with the words, "Stop the Israel's Holocausts."[Al Hayat Al Jadida, March 20, 2008]

Palestinian Authority (Fatah) TV already taught children in the past that Israel burned children in the Holocaust. With ovens pictured in the background and actors playing dead children as part of a musical play, an actor in a video declared:

As southern Israel was under rocket assault from Hamas-controlled Gaza, the Arab print media chose to publish some of the most hateful and incendiary anti-Semitic cartoons we have ever seen. These cartoons have one purpose - to stir up hatred of Jews and Israel. This must be stopped now.

ADL is sending a message of outrage to the ambassadors of the Arab countries whose newspapers publish these cartoons, letting them know we will not tolerate such hateful material. Add your signature to our letter and let your voice be heard.

In ADL's decades of monitoring anti-Jewish editorial caricatures in the Arab press, we have seldom seen such a barrage of such staggeringly hateful, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel images. These outrageous cartoons vilify Israel and portray the Jewish state as an aggressor with genocidal ambitions - again and again, making an obscene and defamatory comparison between Israel's defensive military action to protect its people, and the killing of European Jews during the Holocaust.

Help us continue the fight against this dangerous incitement. Thank you in advance for your support on this important issue.

"Fulfilling the right of return is a human, moral and legal will that can't be denied by the Jews or the international community. On the [60th] anniversary of the great suffering, the Palestinian people are determined to end this injustice."

The Palestinian Authority is planning to mark Israel's 60th anniversary by calling on all Palestinians living abroad to converge on Israel by land, sea and air. The plan, drawn by Ziad Abu Ein, a senior Fatah operative and Deputy Minister for Prisoners' Affairs in the Palestinian Authority, states that the Palestinians have decided to implement United Nations Resolution 194 regarding the refugees.

Article 11 of the resolution, which was passed in December 1948, says that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

The initiative is the first of its kind and is clearly aimed at embarrassing Israel during the anniversary celebrations by highlighting the issue of the "right of return" for the refugees.

Entitled "The Initiative of Return and Coexistence," the plan suggests that the PA has abandoned a two-state solution in favor of one state where all Arabs and Jews would live together.

"The Palestinians, backed by all those who believe in peace, coexistence, human rights and the UN resolutions, shall recruit all their energies and efforts to return to their homeland and live with the Jews in peace and security," the plan says.

"Fulfilling the right of return is a human, moral and legal will that can't be denied by the Jews or the international community. On the [60th] anniversary of the great suffering, the Palestinian people are determined to end this injustice."

Abu Ein's initiative, which has won the backing of many PA leaders in Ramallah, calls on all Israelis to welcome the Palestinians "who will be returning to live together with them in the land of peace."

The plan calls on the refugees to return to Israel on May 14, 2008 with their suitcases and tents so that they could settle in their former villages and towns. The refugees are also requested to carry UN flags upon their return and to be equipped with their UNRWA-issued ID cards.

The Arab countries hosting Palestinian refugees are requested to facilitate the return of the refugees by opening their borders and allowing them to march toward Israel. The plan specifically refers to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, whose governments are asked to provide logistic support to allow the refugees to carry out their mission.

Palestinian refugees living in the US, EU, Canada and Latin America are requested to use their foreign passports to fly to Ben-Gurion Airport from May 14-16. The plan calls for the Palestinians to hire dozens of boats flying UN flags that will converge on Israeli ports simultaneously.

To ensure international backing, the plan calls to invite world leaders, the UN secretary-general, journalists and legal experts from around the world to declare their support for the Palestinians' "right of return." The Palestinians, in return, would promise to practice their right peacefully and to denounce terror and violence.

Arab governments are requested to provide both financial and political backing for the initiative. The plan stresses that the Palestinians can no longer expect to achieve the "right of return" at the negotiating table with Israel. "We must take matters into our own hands," it states. "Negotiations, slogans and UN resolutions are not going to bring us our rights."

Late last month, I went to hear Bishop Desmond Tutu speak at Boston's Old South Church at a conference on "Israel Apartheid." Tutu is a well respected man of God. He brought reconciliation between blacks and whites in South Africa. That he would lead a conference that damns the Jewish state is very disturbing to me.

The State of Israel is not an apartheid state. I know because I write this from Jerusalem where I have seen Arab mothers peacefully strolling with their families even though I also drove on Israeli roads protected by walls and fences from Arab bullets and stones. I know Arabs go to Israeli schools and get the best medical care in the world.

I know they vote and have elected representatives to the Israeli Parliament. I see street signs in Arabic, an official language here. None of this was true for blacks under Apartheid in Tutu's South Africa.

I also know countries that do deserve the apartheid label: My country, Sudan, is on the top of the list, but so are Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. What has happened to my people in Sudan is a thousand times worse than apartheid in South Africa. And no matter how the Palestinians suffer, they suffer nothing compared to my people. Nothing. And most of the suffering is the fault of their leaders.

Bishop Tutu, I see black Jews walking down the street here in Jerusalem. Black like us, free and proud.

Tutu said Israeli checkpoints are a nightmare. But checkpoints are there because Palestinians are sent into Israel to blow up and kill innocent women and children. Tutu wants checkpoints removed. Do you not have doors in your home, Bishop? Does that make your house an apartheid house? If someone, Heaven forbid, tried to enter with a bomb, we would want you to have security people "humiliating" your guests with searches, and we would not call you racist for doing so. We all go through checkpoints at every airport.Are the airlines being racist? No.

Yes, the Palestinians are inconvenienced at checkpoints. But why, Bishop Tutu, do you care more about that incovenience than about Jewish lives? Bishop, when you used to dance for Mandela's freedom, we Africans all over Africa joined in. Our support was key in your freedom. But when children in Burundi and Kinshasa, all the way to Liberia and Sierra Leone, and in particular in Sudan, cried and called for rescue, you heard but chose to be silent.

Today, black children are enslaved in Sudan, the last place in the continent of Africa where humans are owned by other humans. I was part of the movement to stop slavery in Mauritania, which just now abolished the practice. But you were not with us, Bishop Tutu.

So where is Desmond Tutu when my people call out for freedom?Slaughter and genocide and slavery are lashing Africans right now. Where are you for Sudan, Bishop Tutu? You are busy attacking the Jewish state. Why?

Simon Deng, a native of the Shiluk Kingdom in southern Sudan, is an escaped jihad slave and a leading human rights activist.

"The Arab plan is not only to strangle our communication lines and destroy our outposts but to lay siege to the city and starve us into submission -- with a little help from the British. The British don't believe for a moment that we'll be able to withstand an invasion by SEVEN ARAB STATES so the Mandatory policy calls for us to surrender the city to Abdullah, the King of Transjordan, when the Mandate ends on May 15th.

We aren't fooling ourselves. Jerusalem and its 100,000 Jews are in for it. Everyone knows there is no defending the city from a strategic point of view. Our only hope is international intervention in some form -- a UN militia or some other neutral force. I can't believe the entire world would abandon the Holy City without making provisions for safeguarding the sacred places or trying to prevent an outright attack.

Any way you look at it, the picture is already grim. There have been no convoys out of the city for a week and, worse yet, none have arrived in Jerusalem. Food and water supplies are getting critically low and our worst nightmare, isolation from the Jewish State, may ensue. But, believe it or not, spirits are high. Everyday life goes on...with a minimum of the depressing atmosphere you would expect with everyone fully aware of what is in store. "

Zipporah ("Zippy") Porath arrived in Mandatory Palestine in Oct. 1947, as an American student, for what was intended to be a year of study at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. But, caught up in Israel's War of Independence, she served first as a medic in the underground Haganah defense forces, and then in the nascent IDF and the fledgling Israel Air Force. These volunteers from abroad were later recognized as part of the MACHAL volunteer corps.

The letters Zippy wrote to her parents and sister capture the historic events as they occurred. They are compiled in the book, Letters from Jerusalem 1947-1948. You can order it from zip(at)netvision.net.il (Israel) or click here for review and order information

Notice: These letters are copyright 1987 by Zipporah Porath. Introduction copyright 2008 by Zipporah Porath and Zionism-Israel.com. All rights reserved. This document may not be reproduced without express permission of the author and the publisher.

Although the Jewish public is divided on how to react to the missile fire in the south, it prefers military means over a ceasefire based on dialogue with Hamas. An overwhelming majority of the Jewish public thinks that under current conditions, Israel should not agree to Hamas's offer of a ceasefire in return for Israel stopping its attacks in the Gaza Strip and its operations against Hamas members in the West Bank.

The majority also rejects the idea of reaching a ceasefire with Hamas until Israel has effective weapons against missiles, instead favoring the opposite idea of acting immediately to halt the suffering of the southern residents and the damages from the missile attacks. As for preferred solutions: only a small minority of less than one-fifth believes negotiations with Hamas provide the best possibility of preventing further missile fire, and a negligible proportion favors a policy of relative restraint like the one that prevailed until the IDF's recent offensive. The highest preference, held by about one-third of the public, is for limited military operations after which the IDF would exit Gaza. In second place is reoccupying all of Gaza, which about one-quarter of the public supports.

In the domestic sphere, a majority of the public thinks that because of the southern communities' remoteness from the center of the country, the government is not according enough urgency to their security problems. However, the public is selfcritical to almost the same extent, a majority agreeing that these communities' remoteness from the center also negatively affects the citizenry's degree of interest in their problems. At the same time, the overwhelming majority does not agree that the residents of "the state of Tel Aviv"-a term the media uses to describe those in the center of the country-do not identify with the southern residents' suffering and are less patriotic than those in other parts of the country. Furthermore, a very high proportion of the public is prepared to contribute personally to helping the southern residents in various practical ways, including hosting families for an extended period, making purchases in the area under attack, and contributing to social organizations that assist these residents. However, only a minority is prepared to contribute via a tax increase for funding physical protection and the like-possibly because the public believes that civilian organizations will use monies more properly than the government.

Finally, it appears that the ongoing missile fire on Israel is not affecting the "national fortitude," at least insofar as the Jewish public continues to want to live in Israel. If the missile fire has any influence in this regard, it tends more to strengthen the willingness to remain here than to weaken it. At the same time, about half the public now favors a national unity government in the belief that it would cope better with the situation, while about one-third are prepared to rely on the present government.

Those are the main findings of the Peace Index for February 2008, according to the survey conducted on 3-4 March.

Given the worsening missile fire on the southern residents, we checked what response the public sees as most suitable under the current circumstances. First, a clear majority - 71% - says Israel should not accept Hamas's offer to stop the fire in return for Israel ceasing its attacks in Gaza and its pursuit of Hamas leaders. However, the public is divided as to whether Hamas is escalating the fire so as to drag Israel into a large-scale operation that will get it militarily and politically entangled and intensify internal dissension - so that Israel should resist the temptation. Forty-three percent hold that view while 46% reject it.

What response, then, does the public see as most suitable? Although it does not overwhelming favor any one approach, the clear winner is a military operation that should preferably be limited. Whereas only 4% support the ongoing policy of restraint and 17% favor negotiating a ceasefire with Hamas, about one-quarter (26%) call for reoccupying Gaza and staying there for an unlimited time, while one-third want a limited military operation in Gaza after which the IDF would depart. As for the timing of the response: only a small minority - 17% - think Israel should work out a ceasefire with Hamas until it has effective technological means against the missile fire. An overwhelming majority of 75% reject waiting until such means are developed and instead favor acting immediately to halt the ongoing suffering of the southern residents and damages from the missile fire.

Note that there are clear disparities here based on voting in the most recent Knesset elections. For example, whereas 44% of Meretz voters and 40% of Labor voters are prepared to conduct ceasefire negotiations with Hamas, only 21% of Kadima voters, 20% of Likud voters, 10.5% of Shas voters, and 0% of National Religious Party-National Union voters would do so. Conversely, regarding a long-term reoccupation of Gaza, 45.5% of National Religious Party-National Union voters are in favor along with 32% of Likud voters and 31% of Shas voters, compared to only 6% of Meretz voters and 8% of Labor voters. Interestingly, though, just as there is no decisive majority of left-wing voters supporting negotiations with Hamas, no decisive majority of right-wing voters wants to reoccupy Gaza.

Recently a persistent question has been whether Israel's response to the ongoing missile attacks is related to the fact that those on the receiving end are peripheral communities of the south. It turns out that a majority-56%-indeed thinks the government fails to assign supreme urgency to tending to these communities' security problems because of their remoteness from the central region, and would not practice restraint to the same extent if the center of the country was under attack. Only a minority of 37% disagrees. However, the public also shows an impressive degree of self-criticism on this issue, though with a smaller gap between agreement and disagreement: 51% assented that the citizenry is less interested in the southern residents' security problems because of their remoteness from the center while 42% dissented.

In this context we checked attitudes toward the phenomenon known as "the state of Tel Aviv." We asked: "Recently various public figures and the media have used the term 'the state of Tel Aviv' to describe those living in the center of the country, as opposed to those living in the southern or northern periphery. Those who use this term charge the residents of 'the state of Tel Aviv' with a lack of interest in the suffering of those in the periphery. Do you agree or disagree with this view?" It turns out that the public has not been swept away by the accusations against "the state of Tel Aviv." A majority of 55% denied that the residents of the center are uninterested in the suffering of the south, while 38% said they were. An even larger majority of 64% rejected the claim that those in "the state of Tel Aviv" are less patriotic Israelis than those in other parts of the country (38% agreed and the rest had no clear opinion on the matter).

As for the "the state of Tel Aviv's" identification with the southern residents' suffering, there are clear disparities between voters for the different parties. Whereas only 26.5% of Labor voters and 28% of Kadima voters agree that the "state of Tel Aviv" residents do not identify with this suffering, 63% of Shas voters and 43% of National Religious Party-National Union voters accept that claim. Similarly regarding the patriotism of those in "the state of Tel Aviv," while 75.5% of Labor voters, 78% of Kadima voters, and 73% of Meretz voters deny that they are less patriotic, among the right-wing and religious parties the rates are lower: 56% of Likud voters, 48% of National Religious Party-National Union voters, and 46% of Shas voters.

Willingness to personally assist the southern residents is high at least on the declarative level, though not without restrictions. Over two-thirds - 67% - are prepared to host people from the hard-hit south in their homes, 63% are prepared to travel there and make purchases to help the residents economically, and 70% are ready to contribute to social organizations that assist the southern residents. However, apparently within the context of lack of trust in the state, 49% are against paying more taxes to finance physical protection and the like, while a minority of 44% are willing. To what extent do the escalating security problems make citizens want to move to other places? A majority of 55% say the rocket attacks do not affect their desire to keep living in Israel, one-quarter say they only strengthen that desire, while for 18% the attacks increase their desire to live elsewhere.

To the question: given the political and security situation, do you favor establishing a national unity government or relying on the current government? - a majority of 51% responded that a national unity government is preferable while 30% are prepared to rely on the current one. Compared to previous instances when this question was posed over the years, the present rate of supporters of a national unity government is among the lowest.

The Peace Index Project is conducted at the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research and the Evens Program in Mediation and Conflict Resolution of Tel Aviv University, headed by Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann. The telephone interviews were conducted by the B. I. Cohen Institute of Tel Aviv University on 3-4 March 2008 and included 590 interviewees who represent the adult Jewish and Arab population of Israel (including the territories and the kibbutzim). The sampling error for a sample of this size is 4.5%.

West Bank settlements have expanded their jurisdictions by taking control of private Palestinian land and allocating it to settlers. The land takeover - which the Civil Administration calls "theft" - has occured in an orderly manner, without any official authorization.

The method of taking over land is being publicized for the first time, based on testimony from a hearing on an appeal filed by a Kedumim resident, Michael Lesence, against a Civil Administration order to vacate 35 dunams (almost 9 acres) near the Mitzpe Yishai neighborhood of the settlement. Official records show the land as belonging to Palestinians from Kafr Qaddum.

Lesence's lawyer, Doron Nir Zvi, admitted at the hearing that the land in question was private Palestinian property. However, Lesence claims ownership on the grounds that he has been working the land for more than a decade, after he received it in an orderly procedure, complete with a signed agreement, from the heads of the Kedumim local council.

Affidavits from Civil Administration officials stated that Lesence began cultivating the land only in the past six months.

Attorneys Michael Sfard and Shlomi Zecharia, who represent the Palestinian landowners on behalf of Yesh Din - Volunteers for Human Rights, insist their clients continued to work the land, and that the army and settlers from Kedumim are denying their access to it.

Kedumim residents who testified before the board said that the Palestinian have no problem reaching their lands. However, a visit to the area reveals a different picture: The guard at Mitzpe Yishai announced that "it is forbidden to allow Arabs in" to the lands abutting the neighborhood. After the Palestinians approached their property on foot, an army patrol arrived and moved them off. When the commander was told they have Civil Administration documents proving they own the land, the commander replied: "Documents don't interest me."

The land-takeover method was developed in Kedumim and neighboring settlements during the mid-1990s, after the Oslo Accords, and continues to this day.

Zeev Mushinsky, the "land coordinator" at the Kedumim local council, testified as to how it works: Council employees, Mushinsky in this case, would map the "abandoned lands" around the settlements, even if they were outside the council's jurisdiction, with the aim of taking them over. The council would "allocate" the lands to settlers, who would sign an official form stating that they have no ownership claim on the m, and that the council is entitled to evict them whenever it sees fit, in return for compensating them solely for their investment in cultivating the land.

Kedumim's former security chief, Michael Bar-Neder, testified that the land "allocation" was followed by an effort to expand the settlement. Bar-Neder said that once the settlers seized the lands, an application would be made to the military commander to declare them state-owned, since under the law covering the West Bank, anyone who does not cultivate his land for three years forfeits ownership of it.

The Jerusalem District Court will now be able to hear 55 lawsuits filed by victims of terror against the Palestinian Authority, after the Foreign Ministry issued certificates in every case declaring that the PA did not enjoy judicial immunity.

About one-third of the lawsuits were filed between 2000 and 2002 and have thus far been waiting to be heard in court.

Among those who sued the PA were the families of two Israelis killed in a restaurant in Tulkarm; a border policeman killed by a Palestinian policeman near Kalkilya at the beginning of the intifada; an Israeli killed when he brought his car for repairs to a garage in Bidiya; and two reserve soldiers detained in a Ramallah police station who were lynched.

As the first lawsuits against the PA were being filed in the Jerusalem District Court, court president Judge Vardi Zeiler decided to establish a special panel of three judges to deal with all the suits en bloc.

Attorney Yossi Arnon, who represented the PA in these cases, claimed that the PA enjoyed the same immunity from judicial procedures that Israel accorded all foreign states and added that the district court was not empowered to decide on diplomatic and political matters involving upholding the international agreements which established the PA.

On March 30, 2003, the court rejected these arguments and the PA appealed to the Supreme Court. It took the Supreme Court more than four years to rule on the appeal. On July 17, 2007, it rejected the portion of the appeal that sought to prohibit the district court from hearing the lawsuits. However, in sending the lawsuits back to the Jerusalem District Court, it ordered the court to obtain a certificate from the Foreign Ministry declaring in each individual case whether or not the PA enjoyed immunity.

In the meantime, more lawsuits against the PA had piled up in Jerusalem District Court. Today, there are a total of 55. In each case, the Foreign Ministry decided on Sunday, the PA could be sued.

One of the earliest plaintiffs is Eliezer Dayan, whose son, Motti, was one of two Israelis executed by terrorists in Tulkarm in January 2001.

"I'm satisfied that at long last the government has made a decision that will help us in our legal actions," he told The Jerusalem Post. "If we can't weaken the PA in other ways, at least we can hurt them financially. Other ways don't seem to help."

Dayan, however, was critical of the courts. "The judicial system didn't act with the necessary speed," he said. "If they had, some of the terrorist attacks could have been prevented." He also criticized the Foreign Ministry for taking too long to issue the certificates.

[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."

New forms of anti-Semitism are reflected in rhetoric that compares Israel to the Nazis and attributes "Israel's perceived faults to its Jewish character."

This kind of anti-Semitism, the report says, "is common throughout the Middle East and in Muslim communities in Europe, but it is not confined to these populations."

The report says various U.N. bodies are regularly asked to launch "investigations of what often are sensationalized reports of alleged atrocities and other violations of human rights by Israel."

"The collective effect of unremitting criticism of Israel, coupled with a failure to pay attention to regimes that are demonstrably guilty of grave violations, has the effect of reinforcing the notion that the Jewish state is one of the sources, if not the greatest source, of abuse of the rights of others, and thus intentionally or not encourages anti-Semitism."

Report: Anti-Semitism on the rise globally

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A report from the U.S. State Department details "an upsurge" across the world of anti-Semitism -- hostility and discrimination toward Jewish people.

"Today, more than 60 years after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is not just a fact of history, it is a current event," the report says.

The report -- called Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism and given to Congress on Thursday -- is dedicated to the memory of the late U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos, a survivor of the Holocaust, the extermination of 6 million Jews during World War II.

The report details physical acts of anti-Semitism, such as attacks, property damage, and cemetery desecration. It also lists manifestations such as conspiracy theories concerning Jews, Holocaust denial, anti-Zionism and the demonization of Israel.

"Over much of the past decade, U.S. embassies worldwide have noted an increase in anti-Semitic incidents, such as attacks on Jewish people, property, community institutions, and religious facilities," the report says.

The report also deals with efforts to combat the bigotry, described by Gregg J. Rickman, the department's special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism, as "one of the oldest forms of malicious intolerance."

The report says violent acts and desecration of Jewish property happen whether there are a lot of Jews or only a few living in the region. Bigoted rhetoric, conspiracy theories regarding Jews, and anti-Semitic propaganda are transmitted over the airwaves and on the Internet.

It says that although Nazism and fascism are rejected by the West "and beyond," blatant forms of anti-Semitism are "embraced and employed by the extreme fringe."

"Traditional forms of anti-Semitism persist and can be found across the globe. Classic anti-Semitic screeds, such as 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' and 'Mein Kampf' remain commonplace.

"Jews continue to be accused of blood libel, dual loyalty, and undue influence on government policy and the media, and the symbols and images associated with age-old forms of anti-Semitism endure."

New forms of anti-Semitism are reflected in rhetoric that compares Israel to the Nazis and attributes "Israel's perceived faults to its Jewish character."

This kind of anti-Semitism, the report says, "is common throughout the Middle East and in Muslim communities in Europe, but it is not confined to these populations."

The report says various U.N. bodies are regularly asked to launch "investigations of what often are sensationalized reports of alleged atrocities and other violations of human rights by Israel."

"The collective effect of unremitting criticism of Israel, coupled with a failure to pay attention to regimes that are demonstrably guilty of grave violations, has the effect of reinforcing the notion that the Jewish state is one of the sources, if not the greatest source, of abuse of the rights of others, and thus intentionally or not encourages anti-Semitism."

The report gives examples of leaders and governments that "fan the flames of anti-Semitic hatred within their own societies and even beyond their borders." It cites Syria, Belarus, Venezuela, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Radical forces in the Middle East have rewritten the international rulebook in a way designed so they can't lose. That is, there is no easy response to their behavior and strategies. Even more worrisome is the widespread failure in the West even to realize this is happening. Hamas and Hizbullah fire from among civilians and use civilian homes for military purposes; Syria or Iran deploy disinformation; radical regimes pretend moderation, and there are plenty of suckers to take the bait.

Extremism makes many believe that kind words and concessions can transform them; intransigence produces the response that if they won't give up, we must do so.

HERE ARE some new rules in which "we" represents such disparate forces as Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran, Iraqi insurgents, al-Qaida, Syria, the Taliban and others, including radical Arab nationalists.

These forces are not all alike or allied, but do often follow a parallel set of rules quite different from how international affairs have generally been conducted.

1. We'll never give up. No matter what you do, we will continue fighting. No matter what you offer, we will keep attacking you. Since you can't win, you should give up.

2. We're indifferent to any pressure you put on us. We will turn this pressure against you. Against us, deterrence does not exist; diplomacy does not convince.The carrot cannot buy us off, nor the stick make us yield. There are no solutions that can end the conflict. You cannot win militarily, nor make peace through diplomacy.

3. If you set economic sanctions, we'll say you are starving our people in an act of "collective punishment." Moreover, sanctions will cost you money and generate opposition among those who lose profits.

4. In response to military operations, we'll attack your civilians. Casualties will undermine your internal support. We will try to force you to kill civilians accidentally. We won't care, but will use this to persuade many that you are evil. Thus we will simultaneously murder your civilians and get you condemned as human rights violators.

5. If you try to isolate us we will use your own media and intellectuals against you. At times, we will hint at moderation and make promises of change. We won't do so enough to alienate our own followers, but enough to subvert yours. They will demand you engage us, which means you making concessions for nothing real in exchange.

6. Talking to our own people, we will foment hatred and demonize you. Speaking to the West, we will accuse you of fomenting hatred. We will hypocritically turn against you all the concepts you developed: racism, imperialism, failure to understand the "other," and so on. These concepts, of course, describe what we are doing, but your feelings of guilt, ignorance about us, and indifference to ideology will make you fail to notice that fact.

7. We will claim to be victims and "underdogs." Because you are stronger and more "advanced," that means you are the villains. We are not held responsible for our deeds, or expected to live up to the same standards. There will be no shortage of, to quote Lenin, "useful idiots" in your societies to help echo our propaganda.

8. Since our societies are weak, undemocratic and have few real moderates, you will have to make deals with phoney moderates and dictatorial regimes weakened by corruption and incompetence.

9. Even the less radical regimes, often our immediate adversaries, partly play into our hands. Due to popular pressure - plus their desire to mobilize support and distract attention from their own shortcomings - they trumpet Arab and Islamic solidarity. They denounce the West, blame all problems on Israel and revile America, even as they accept your aid. They glorify interpretations of Islam not too far from ours. They cheer Iraqi insurgents, Hizbullah, and Hamas. They don't struggle against Iran getting nuclear weapons. They lay the basis for our mass support and recruits.

10. There is no diplomatic solution for you, though you yearn to find one. There is no military solution for you, whether you try that or not. You love life, we love death; you are divided, we are united; you want to get back to material satisfaction, we are dedicated revolutionaries. We will outlast you.

Finally, our greatest weapon is that you truly don't understand all the points made above. You are taught, informed, and often led by people who simply don't comprehend what an alternative, highly ideological, revolutionary world view means.

In effect, we will try, and will often succeed, to turn your "best and brightest" into the worst and dimmest who think you can persuade us, who blame you for the conflicts, or expect that we will alter our course. We will use those mistakes against you.

THE ABOVE analysis seems pessimistic, but is actually the opposite. Most of this strategy's power is based on spreading illusions, depending on gullibility. Much of the rest relies on the enemy's psychological weaknesses.

In a sustained conflict, the radicals' technological and organizational weaknesses, along with their mistaken assessments and unrealistic ideology, will bring inevitable defeat. They will lose even if they never surrender. They can kill people, but not overcome societies determined to grow, prosper, and survive.

The keys to a successful response are steadfastness and understanding. To paraphrase Francis Bacon and Franklin Roosevelt, there is nothing to fear but fear - and gullibility - itself.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center at IDC Herzliya and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs. His latest book is The Truth About Syria.

A survey commissioned by Friedrich Naumann Foundation - for Liberty in cooperation with the Freedom Forum - Palestineconducted by Near East ConsultingRamallah, PalestineJanuary, 2008

Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty, the liberal German civic education organization commissioned an opinion poll on "Liberal Values in the Palestinian Society". This opinion poll was carried out by "Near East Consulting", a renowned and highly qualified research institute based in Ramallah.

The survey was carried out from the 25th of September till the 18th of October 2007. A total of 1608 (out of a total of 1900 calls) respondents were selected in both regions.

How do you identify yourself?A Palestinian first 29%A Muslim first 41%An Arab first 5%A human being first 23%Other 1%...Figure 24: In your opinion, what is the main cause behind religious extremism in the oPt?10% Poverty and unemployment 2% Fear of modernity10% Influence of religious leaders (religious discours)19% Israeli occupation14% The enmity the west has towards Islam14% Low education 6% Moral decadence10% Corruption16% There is no religious extremism

Figure 33: Do you support or oppose that Christians be equal to Muslims in all rights and obligationsSupport 91% Oppose 9%...Figure 35: Would you agree with the following: a Christian president?Yes 33% No 67%...Figure 37: Selling alcohol to adults should be a private issueTotally reject (n=989) 67%Reject (n=113) 8%Neutral (n=61) 4%Accept (n=83) 6%Totally accept (n=232) 16%

Figure 58: Are you for reconciliation between Arabs and Jews?Yes 71% No 29%

Figure 59: The best way to reach a settlement with Israel is through.Military Means 23% Negotiations 56% Both 21%

Figure 60: Taking into consideration that there are all settlers are out of Palestine, can you imagine a Jew as a neighbour? Yes 50% No 50%

Figure 61: Taking into consideration that there are all settlers are out of Palestine, can you imagine a Jew as a Palestinian citizen? Yes 42% No 58%

Figure 62: Would you side with a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian even if the Palestinian was wrong?Only if the non-Palestinian is right 34%I will not interfere 11%I will always side with the Palestinian regardless 54%

Former PA Minister Qadura Fares Refuses to Denounce Terror Attack at Jerusalem Religious Seminary, States: We in Fatah Have Been Conducting the Same Kind of Struggle

Following are excerpts from an interview with Qadura Fares, former PA minister and member of the Fatah leadership, which aired on ANB TV on March 9, 2008.

Qadura Fares:

The Fatah movement does not denounce this kind of operation, and the Palestinian people has the right to conduct resistance against the occupation. In addition, the Fatah movement - since its foundation and to this moment - has been employing this form of struggle. The operation was not directed against a religious school, as was reported in the media. It was directed at an institute which produces extremist leaders. By the way, most of the leaders of the Gush Emunim movement - the extremist right-wing movement that leads the settlement activity in Palestine - graduated from this institute, including Effi Eitam, that well-known extremist.